Welcome to HDF! If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the Join Us! link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Enjoy your visit.

Dangers of Supremacism in religions

PraNaam !

Yesterday, I was watching a video-clip of a Maulana in India (viral on "Whatsapp") who was giving fatwa on "Whether Muslims should wish Hindus on Diwali, Holi etc.". His opinion was, "It is un-Islamic to wish a Hindu on Diwali because the occasion is related to Lord Rama and historically it cannot be proved that He existed. He felt that by wishing a Hindu on Diwali, one accepts the authenticity of that story and therefore it was Un-Islamic". Similarly on Holi his opinion was, "The authenticity of the story behind Holi is suspect and therefore it cannot be accepted and therefore it was again Un-Islamic." On a Hindu wishing a Muslim on Eid his opinion was, "It was correct as Eid was linked with all historical events and are verifiable and therefore, even though Muslims don't want their wishes, it was in right direction."

Usually, Hindus try to ignore such utterances as one's extreme and most ignorant views. I also was in the same mood after seeing this viral video but this led me think "Is it not giving rise to extremism in the society and making life of a common man difficult on this planet ?". This may be his personal opinion and I cannot say whether it has the sanction of Q'uran or not (as Q'uran says, "There is no compulsion in religion" and "Your religion is yours and mine is mine"". However, such thinking that "My religion is better than all other religions and other religions are all false and illogical" is actually, supremacism in religion. Saying, "My religion is very good" is harmless but saying "other religions are illogical and false" is dangerous because all hatred starts with some sort of feeling of Supremacism against "the others". If we analyze critically :

a) Why did Hitler kill the innocent Jews ? Because he hated them as he considered that Aryans were the best race in the world and they had right to rule over the inferior Jews community in whatever manner they wanted.
b) Why did Brahminical order in Hindu Society breed untouchability in Hindu society ? Because Brahmins felt that they were superior to other castes and they were purer than all others and they would get dirty if others touch them.
c) Why Male species in humans tried to put so much restrictions on females and decide how they should live i.e. try to subjugate them ? Because they felt that they were superior to women (even though they had advantage in physical terms but that alone doesn't decide the superiority).
d) Why did the White people of Europe try to subjugate the black people and make them their slaves ? Because they felt that White as a race was superior to black.
e) Why do ISKCON people say derogatory words against Advaitins ? Because they feel that their belief system is superior to those of the Advaitins.

.... so on and so forth !

This is supremacism in one form or the other. Whenever such supremacism raises its ugly head in the society, there will be atrocities on innocents, mindless killings and there is no end to that.

That way I am proud to be a Hindu as Hindu Dharma doesn't teach you to feel superior over the people of different faiths and therefore, people have less blood on their hands as compared to people of Abrahmic religions. It is not unusual to find a Hindu going to a Muslim Dargah and bowing to the saint's place in reverence, a Hindu going to a Church and bowing to the Murti of Jesus Christ with full reverence.

Let's come back to supremacism in religions. So, what I was saying that these religious teachers, even though they might not be instigating people to be violent against people of other religions, they give them reasons to become so when the time is favorable. There is a need to stop such people from spreading such feeling of supremacism in people of one community against the others. People say that Zakir Naik and people like him didn't teach extremism or terrorism ....OK. But when feelings of supremacism are very strong in any person, he is more likely to act in an extremist way. He genuinely feels that he is superior and if he is nice to others, it is his magnanimity and it is not that the "others" deserve that magnanimity. This is nothing but teaching first lesson of extremism passively to unsuspecting minds. We should be careful against such people and society must take care that people who try to fan such feelings are controlled before it is too late.

******
Before I finish, I would like to answer that Maulana's questions raised against Lord Rama's existence etc. :

1. Let us agree for argument's sake that Lord Rama's existence has no historical evidence and that it may be a false story (though many scientific evidences are coming which may prove existence of Lord Rama without any doubts but let's forget that here). That means, "It is a matter of faith". You may believe in existence in Lord Rama and may not believe. It is a matter of belief and a a matter of faith. So, per that Maulana who was trying to show Hindu religion in bad light, "As it is a matter of just belief without any historical and scientific basis, it must be false and not worthy of Muslims' respect".

So, let's agree for a while with him and accept that unless there is historical proof / evidence ... nothing should be accepted as True. I would like to ask only one question from that Maulana saheb :

"Islam is based on acceptance of Mohammad saheb as the prophet and Q'uran as word of God. What is the basis of accepting that Mohammad saheb was truly a messenger of God and that he was not making up things for misguiding people ? As Q'uran was told to the world by Mohammad saheb alone, Q'uran cannot be accepted as a valid proof for acceptance of his being the prophet because if a person himself is a suspect, any evidence given by him would remain a suspect alone. So, can Maulana saheb give any acceptable evidence to prove that Mohammad saheb was really a prophet and the book that he gave to the world was really word of God ?"

I am sure, he cannot answer the above question because it is simply a matter of belief and faith only and there is no evidence which can be relied upon without any doubt. Still Hindus don't say anything wrong against Islam and wish them "Happy Eid" ... such is the humility of the Hindus and that is why Hindus respect all religions. Will there be any man in Islam which will show these people the true path and help make this planet become a peaceful place to live in ?

2. There are other questions which keep bothering me, like :

"Let me agree that I follow a false religion and worship false God or various gods. OK. For argument's sake, I accept that I would go to hell for doing so (though I have strong reasons to prove otherwise). But how does that give you reason to kill me ? You are going to heaven. Fine. OK. Very good. I am going to hell, agreed. But that is my problem and not yours. Why should that bother you ? Will I be entitled to go to heaven if you kill me because of my faith ? Or just because you think that you are going to heaven and I am going to hell, you acquire rights to kill me ?" My deciding to go to heaven or hell should be my own decision and not yours. If those who kill innocent people in the name of religion are going to heaven, I will never like to be in that heaven and I would never ever worship a God who is so merciless and heartless that He feels happy over killing of innocents just because they worship Him in form and not in His formlessness. I would rather prefer to live in hell for eternity with those innocent people who believed in some other book and would try to help them than choosing to go to heaven.

But why should that disturb your peace, my friend ? Is it not my right to make choices for myself ? Let God deal with me directly and settle any dispute that He might have with me instead of taking your help in a matter which is purely between God and me ? ... And if God is really Omnipotent, why did he create me and my mind like that at all ? If wants to punish me, why should He need weak humans to help carry out His job ?

***************

Let's be watchful against any such thoughts. If anyone or anything exists in this universe, it is His wish. If anything has certain characteristics (which may or may not be liked by me and for that feeling only my thoughts are responsible), it is His wish. Such pseudo-religious scholars are the source of all such feelings of supremacism and all hatred in the society. Let's banish them !!

Re: Dangers of Supremacism in religions

Sub : The fraud of claims of being Student of comparative study of religions

Some scholars like Zakir Naik claim that they are student of comparative study of religions. That is the biggest fraud of the century and has been one of the the biggest promoter of supremacism among unsuspecting young minds of Muslims. What are the claims and what are the doubts countering them ?

A) Claim 1 : As Prophet Mohammad was the last prophet sent by God, his message should be taken as the final word/message of God.

Question : a) It was Prophet Mohammad who claimed that he was a prophet. There is no proof except he himself that he was the last messenger. So, that raises doubts on this claim. If that has to be accepted then it can be claimed by anyone. Will we accept that claim ? I have no issues with Prophet Mohammad's claims and his followers faith but there is no strong reason or logic which can make everyone also believe in what they believe.
b) Why should God give diametrically opposite commandments at different points of time ? Is He not supposed to be omniscient and the most intelligent ? If He is so, logically, He should not be changing His mind so much with passage of time.

B) Those who worship created objects are worshipping false God like the Hindus worshipping images of God/Goddesses :

This is the worst understanding of Hindu religion. Hindus don't worship any image. They worship God through an image. First of all, the understanding of creation is itself flawed per Hindu understanding. The highest Hindu philosophy is that there is no creation separate from God. And this is not just a philosophy given by someone. Hindus believe and claim that this Truth can be experienced by anyone. God is not like a King / Creator who at some point of time created this world and all beings at His whims. God is neither a being nor non-being, per Hindu Dharma. It is infinite pure consciousness which gives rise to this multitude due to Its desire of becoming many. One-ness with God (Aham BrahmAsmi) has been attained not only in Hindu Dharma. It has been also attained in Christianity : "I and my Father are One" (Jesus), in Islam : " I am the Truth/Anal Haque" (Mansoor Al Hallaz), in Buddhism : Any being is potential Buddha. Buddhahood can be attained by anyone.

So, the whole thinking of worshipping false God is nothing but falsehood. When there is Only one God where is the scope of worshiping any other God ? A person may choose any name and any form and formlessness for worshipping God but everyone is worshipping the same God. This is logical even if God is a Creator separate from His creation. How ? If one father has many children all over the earth and father never ever comes in front of His Children and He keeps sending different messages about his names and forms/formlessness then it is certainly going to confuse His children. In that case, if different children start calling Him by different names and imagine Him in different forms/formlessness, should the father be angry with his children ? Can any child correctly claim that he alone the father's name and form correctly ?

Question : Yes, Svetasvatar Upanishad says that there is no image of Him. This is because He is beyond all forms. However, does it say that He is only formless ? More so, does the Upanishad anywhere say that He should not be worshiped through an image ? Our scriptures say, "He is neither being nor non-being" --- He is beyond all concepts of forms and formlessness. Why ? Because the concept of a form or formlessness is due to presence of mind. In absolute sense, form or formlessness has no meaning. A Flower is in form in presence of a human mind and when seen with visible light waves but when seen with X-rays, does it retain its form ? Anything which has a form is composed of tiny moelcules with huge amount of space between them. Molecules themselves are made of huge number of atoms with a large volume of space between them. The atoms themselves are made up of 99.99% of space inside it. Protons, electrons and Neutrons are made up of quarks and anti-quarks which cannot be called solid in any sense. So, seeing something "solid" where there is nothing "solid inside" is only relative in presence of mind and instruments of cognizance. So, why shed blood over this childish issue ? Let's think deeper and logically and find the correct unbiased answer and decide what is right and what is wrong.

d) Prophet Mohammad is mentioned in Bhavishya PurANa :

PuraNas are never considered authority and Bhavishya PurANa is not considered even an authentic PuRANa by all Hindus. Moreover, Hindu Scholars have raised strong objections to even this claim even if Bhavishya PurANa is considered authentic.
Apart from the above, nothing written anywhere in any scripture can be accepted unless it is supported by the Vedas.

e) There are Scientific Theories written in Q'uran which were not discovered in the time of Mohammad Saheb :

Though I have no issues with those who believe in this but I have examined almost all claims and found that there are serious flaws in such understanding. If you want to believe, it is OK but please don't force these beliefs to others as the scientific truths. I can talk on all such claims but hurting anyone's sentiments is not my aim and therefore I won't do it. I am only concerned with the falsehood being spread by some self-proclaimed scholars of Comparative study of religions against Hinduism in the garb of such claims.